Subject: Re: [Anima] [homenet] write up of time without clocks

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 20:54:51 +0100

On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 10:18:06PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> Before we start imagining what the requirements in such situations are,
> are they at all written somewhere?  Otherwise we run the risk of
> inventing a lot of mechanism to deal with a non-existent use case.

Not being Brian, but you being encumbered with more IETF/IAB
background, let me bring up the point that during anima formation,
our AD(s) where not too happy to delay progress in anima by 
"requirements" documents or the much.

 - not sure if/how this might have changed
 - written requireemnts from other WGs would be nice instead
   of us (anima) having to come up with them
 - Wasn't/isn't there some form of work in IETF bout emergency
   or the like (911)... drawing a blank here, but maybe those
   folks have requirements to draw from.

Cheers
   Toerless

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 05:43:43 +0100

Hi Toerless,

> "requirements" documents or the much.

Sure, and I don't think we should.
>    folks have requirements to draw from.

The ECRIT WG did some work, and indeed that is where I went to look at
some of this stuff.  But I think they were quite focused on E911-type
solutions and didn't go further.

Eliot

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 20:08:50 +1300

> solutions and didn't go further.

Also, much of this topic is systems engineering, not protocol design.
However, at the protocol design level it seems apparent that autonomic
mechanisms *above all others* need to work when everything else is broken.
For many aspects that reduces to defining defaults that apply on a cold
start, but for security bootstrap in particular it also means defining
what happens when no external dependencies are possible. That does seem
to need pixie dust.

    Brian

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 09:07:06 +0100

Hi Brian,

> what happens when no external dependencies are possible. That does seem

I could envision multiple approaches to addressing this, but I didn't
want to go down the solutions path until we have a clear understanding
of what we are solving for.  For instance, there is replacement
equipment, and then there are first responders.  Do first responders
require authentication?  Is authentication in these cases a binary
output or perhaps characterized differently?  And how does this differ
from other problems, such as electronic health records (EHR) in these
circumstances?  I think we could spend quite some time in that sort of
discussion.  For a proposed standard, we may be overreaching, and so we
should be quite careful.  But I would agree that the topic should be
covered in greater depth.  My issue is one of how much to bite off now.

Eliot

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 07:46:35 +1300

> covered in greater depth.  My issue is one of how much to bite off now.

I completely agree. And indeed my concern is whether there is something
fundamental that we need in BRSKI to allow for this - I mean something
that would be very painful to retrofit later. Apart from that, the
question can be deferred.

   Brian